Talk:Faith in Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Faith in Buddhism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 29, 2018 Good article nominee Listed
April 28, 2018 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Removing the Templates from Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism section[edit]

I would like to remove the templates from the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism section. I've address the technical concerns brought up with additional content, notes and wikilinks. Ultimately, the Buddha is the primary source here in articles about dharma faith, making all else secondary. The current sources are mostly specially selected translations by authors who have critically analysed the sources to provided notable translated content. The originating authors have primarily based their works on Suttra, Tantra and the Abhidharma as preceding sources, making there work removed from and encompassing from the primary sources. The rediscovered termas have been attributed to Guru Rinpoche and been verified by others. In addition, some of the sources are commentaries on works that have been recorded from lineage masters that maintain a directly link to previous masters studies within the school. Other sources are compendiums of dharma within the Nyingma Tradition which in effect are like tertiary sources. There are sources written by adherents which appear to be people with faith but outside the lineage master dharma tradition. The sources here serve Wikipedia articles' purpose by giving the critical points for the section. We can take down the templates. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that you are working to improve the section, but you can't fix it without changing the sources. A secondary source is a source that takes an analytical distance of the subject matter; a translation or a book about Buddhist practice does not take such distance, and is therefore unlikely to be neutral and reflective enough for an encyclopedia source.
The article is still very technical, although in fairness, some terms are explained in the notes. But this is not sufficient to make the text readable. On a more personal note, you might want to try and have an uniniated person read what you are writing, and talk it over before posting. Or else, try and ping the other editors on this talk page for a second opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
So let's be specific, where are you seeing original research, or difficulty so that it may be corrected, else these sources are adequate for what has been contributed here. Blanket statements about the sources aren't helping us take those templates down. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Beside the problem with primary religious sources, the Nyingma section relies "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." [1] JimRenge (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi ZuluPapa5. I'm afraid I agree with Farang Rak Tham that your writing is too technical and too detailed; I also agree with JimRenge that there is an overreliance on primary sources. Basically, you've collected together some sayings from five different teachers on faith; that may be instructive when studying on your own, or within a Buddhist group. 'Writing by citing' is a tendency I've seen with more Tibetan-inspired Wiki-Buddhists; it resembles the Tibetan style of scholarly writing. It may be he norm within a (western) Tibetan context, but it's not how we write a (western-style) encyclopedia. It's not very informative for an encyclopedia. An ancyclopedia has to provide context and an overview; these are lacking here.

I think it's fine when you know the texts of a specific tradition from within, but in order to communicate the teachings to other people you'll have to accommodate your style to your audience. After all, that's also what the Buddha did, didn't he? Reading through that section, it could also be summarized. For those who develop on the Buddhist path, I'm sure they're able to find more advanced info and sources, just like you did. This is what I condense from this subsection (compare Rebecca Novick, Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism, on Faith):

According to the Nyingma tradition, faith has various functions on the Buddhist path. It is a virtuous aspect, which helps the practitioner towards the goal of full Buddhahood.[1]

According to Patrul Rinpoche, faith precedes refuge to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. This faith develops from vivid faith, to eager faith, and confident faith,[note 1] into irreversible faith, when it becomes integral to the person, and is the cause of taking refuge.[citation needed] Lacking faith is one of the six stains, conduct to avoid when listening to teachings.[note 2]

According to Jigme Lingpa, many factors may instill faith. Four crucial factors are an authentic spiritual master attendance, wholesome friends, the three jewels and reflection on existence's round of misery.[3]

  1. ^ According to Paltrul Rinpoche and others, reflecting on the teachers' and Buddha's immense compassion inspires vivid faith. Eagerness to be free from suffering inspires eager faith. While confident faith in the three jewels, from the heart's depth, once their blessings and extraordinary qualities are understood. Therefore, faith has been defined as having a vivid and eager mind towards, and have confidence in, that which is authentic and true. Seeking refuge is motivated by these three kinds of faith.[2]
  2. ^ The six stains (Wyl. dri ma drug; Tib. དྲི་མ་དྲུག་) are conduct to avoid when listening to teachings. From Vasubandhu’s Well Explained Reasoning:
    1. Arrogance, lack of faith,
    2. Lack of any interest,
    3. Outward distraction, inward tension,
    4. And discouragement.
    See Patrul Rinpoche, Preliminary Points to be Explained When Teaching the Buddha’s Word or the Treatises, translated by Adam Pearcey
  1. ^ Tragpa, Zurchung Sherab (January 2, 2007). Zurchungpa's Testament (First ed.). Snow Lion. p. 17, 19–21. ISBN 978-1-55939-264-8. 
  2. ^ Powers, John (2007). Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (PDF) (2nd ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications. p. 297. ISBN 1-55939-835-3. 
  3. ^ Lingpa, Jigme (April 20, 2010). Treasury of Precious Qualities: Book One: Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group (Revised ed.). Shambhala. p. 125. ISBN 1-59030-711-9. 

What's lacking is an overview of the role of faith in Tibetan Buddhism, as described by scholars from without the Tibetan tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@ is there specific content your concerned about in this section or maybe just that's some form of prejudice fear? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The content you added reads like a religious text, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. The amount of text about the Nyingma tradition appears to be out of proportion. Please see WP:NPOV for more info. I see no support for your addition. JimRenge (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Faith in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Faith in Buddhism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 02:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. It looks like a promising candidate for GA and I will try to have it finished within the next week. On a side note, I thought I would point out that there is a severe backlog in this section and, right now, I seem to be the only one reviewing articles in it. I also thought I would remind the nominator that he or she has nominated ten article in this section, but has only reviewed four articles total, none of which are in this section. I do not mean to be a nuisance or anything, but I thought I would point out that it is generally recommended that, if you are able, you should try to review at least two articles for every one you nominate. My articles Enlil, Anunnaki, Jonah, Satan, and Aphrodite are all awaiting a reviewer. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, thank you for review. I hope the article makes sense to you. Please note that the article is for a great deal based on tertiary sources (e.i. encyclopedia articles), due to the broad nature of the subject of faith. I have, when more detail was required, used numerous secondary sources as well.
With regard to the review guidelines, you are right in that I have not reviewed many religious articles. I should do more of that. In fairness, I have done considerable efforts to get Theology of Pope Francis to pass GA, in this, this and this section, but i did not succeed in actually starting a proper GA procedure as the nominator withdrew.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I apologize if my reminder sounded too much like a chastisement; that was not at all my intention. I was just trying to remind you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it is just that I have been reminded before, so the sense of urgency is peaking, lol. Anyway, let's get to business: does the article here meet any of the GA criteria yet?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Katolophyromai, if you have any specific suggestions, I am waiting.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being prepared to help, Farang Rak Tham, but I am currently undergoing a review myself for the article Hypatia, which I nominated in the "Mathematics and mathematicians" category and I am also reviewing another article in addition to this one. I am also caught up in several other conflicts and, on top of that, I actually do have some other things going on in my real life, so please try not to become too impatient. I completely understand the feeling, since I too have sometimes felt impatient with reviewers, but I assure you I have not forgotten about this article and I am working on the review as diligently as possible.
I intend to review this article in chunks, starting with the first section and finishing with the lead, so that I can be sure it is an accurate summary of the whole article. I have posted my first set of criticisms below, which are over the "Role in the Buddhist teaching" and "Early Buddhism" sections. I will return later (probably tomorrow) with more criticisms. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Great! That's all I ask.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):


Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Role in the Buddhist teaching - As an initial step[edit]

Specific criticisms[edit]

Some of these may be slightly nitpicky:

1. "...a joyful surrender to enlightened or highly developed beings..." The wording here is rather POV. I would recommend rephrasing this to make it more neutral. The word "joyful" in particular has a strong positive connotation, so, unless "joyful surrender" is a specific term that is commonly used in Buddhism, I would recommend changing this.


2 "In Buddhism, in the development of the understanding of faith two historical layers can be distinguished: an early and later stratum." Who is the one distinguishing between the two "layers"? Which scholars make this distinction? You may want to attribute this distinction more clearly in the text itself; otherwise, it may seem like original research.


3 "Indeed, it does not..." I generally tend to dislike using the word "indeed" in a Wikipedia entry because it tends to imply that either whatever follows is a rephrasing of the previous sentence, or that the writer is trying to argue a point. Neither of these are good implications for an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be concise and unbiased. You can probably just remove the word "indeed," or perhaps replace it with a different opening. This one is really just my opinion and you do not necessarily have to take it.

Indeed. And done.

4 "And although the Buddha..." I do not know if this is the case in British English, but I do know that, in American English, the word "and" is always a conjunction and should never be used at the beginning of a sentence; it is only used for joining two sentences together. I assume the rule is probably the same in British English, but I have gotten in trouble for making similar assumptions before.

You are probably right. Done.

5 "Because faith is included in lists of virtues for laypeople, it is clear that faith is described as a progressive quality for devotees, as a devotee who is new to the Buddhist religion is characterized as "young in devotion"." The words "it is clear that" are needlessly verbose and should be excised from the sentence.


6 You use the passive voice quite frequently. I would strongly recommend picking out all of the instances of the passive voice and switching them to the active voice, which reads better and is less confusing. For example, one particular instance I happened to pick out is: "In the Pali Canon, different approaches of faith are described," which I would recommend changing to say, "The Pali Canon describes different approaches to faith." This reads much more clearly and is less confusing.

This is quite a strong habit in my writing. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have replaced many now, but some instances I have left, because rewriting them would make the text more stilted or less readable. It is quite some work. I will continue in the evening.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. As said, I have left some instances in which cases I felt it made sense, when the subject had not clearly been the defined by the source material used, or when the sentence just ran more smoothly in passive voice.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

General criticisms[edit]

You keep contrasting Buddhism with other religions, particularly Christianity. While I will not fail the article on this account, I would recommend against this for several reasons:

  1. We do not know where the reader of this article will be coming from and the reader may not necessarily be familiar with Christianity, which would make the contrast more confusing than informative.
  2. Contrasting the two religions on specific points may implicitly give the misleading impression that they are similar on other points, which will give a mistaken concept of what Buddhism is actually like.

When I am writing articles about ancient Mesopotamian religion or ancient Greek religion, I usually try to avoid drawing comparisons with present-day religions because I think that doing so would be misleading. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot follow which Wikipedia principle you are referring to. If you are referring to a POV editing problem, I can tell you that I have not cherry-picked sources which compare Buddhism favorably with other religions.
I have now, however, removed a sentence pertaining to God as a creator, which I don't believe added anything valuable to the content of the article. i have also rewritten one instance of the word gods, which referred to heavenly beings in Buddhist cosmology, which is probably confusing.
Nevertheless, the word faith, the subject of the article, is essentially a word loaded with Christian connotations, which therefore must be discussed to explain whether they hold for Buddhism or not. However, if you think that any of the statements concerning Christianity would not hold up against scrutiny from mainstream Christian scholarship, then please mention which, and I will certainly consider rewriting or deleting. After all, a Buddhist Studies scholar may possibly be an unreliable source in such subject matter. It must be noted, however, that I have tried, and with great efforts I believe, to show in this article that Buddhism has had a theistic side throughout Buddhist history, but that scholars dispute as to whether this is "authentic" Buddhism or not. Whether this inquiry into authenticity is really that useful, is another matter of course, which is not for us editors to decide.
Finally, it is important to realize when reviewing Buddhism articles, a critical historical approach of Buddhism will—and indeed, must—describe the context from which Buddhism arose. Therefore, comparing Buddhism with pre-Buddhist Brahmanism in modern Buddhist scholarship is as common as the sun is rising in the East. On a similar note, Buddhist modernism, also known as "Protestant Buddhism", was per definition a response to Christian missionary activity in the East. It is widely recognized by present scholarship that these responses have fundamentally affected Buddhist theory and practice, and still are affecting it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not referring to a specific policy. This was just my own personal recommendation. I was not in any way trying to imply that you were cherrypicking sources that compare Buddhism favorably with other religions. Furthermore, I definitely agree that the article does need to describe the context of pre-Buddhist Brahmanism; the part dealing with Brahmanism was not what I was remarking on here. I was mainly commenting on the several points where you contrast Buddhist faith with Christian faith, which I felt seemed to be assuming that the reader comes from a western cultural standpoint and is familiar with Christianity, an assessment that is not necessarily accurate for all readers. Nonetheless, I appreciate the answer you have given and I think that it is an entirely reasonable one. On a side note, if you think that the word "faith" is a loaded word that carries Christian baggage, it might be worth considering the option to move this article to a better title that uses a word less closely associated with Christianity. What do you think? --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have considered that, but it would not work: there are too many terms that mean 'faith' in too many languages, and they mean different things. But like I said, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Buddhist Studies scholars make mistakes when describing Christianity, which is often not their forte. Therefore, if you are familiar with that field, you should point that out. When you have read the entire article, and you feel it is biased in any way, you should also let me know.
Meanwhile, I am still working on making passive sentences active; almost done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. I appreciate your reply. I have not noticed any errors concerning Christian doctrine so far, but I have not been particularly looking for errors of that variety, nor was I suggesting that there necessarily were any. So far, I am not really noticing any large-scale biases, but I have observed a few POV phrases here and there. I have already pointed out the ones I have noticed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Awaiting further comments.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Katolophyromai, could you repeat those POV phrases again, please? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You have already corrected them. They were the "joyful surrender" and "indeed" points that I mentioned above. Once again, whether or not they are really POV could depend somewhat on one's perspective. I will be continuing this review by moving on to the next section. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of sections Millenarianism and Dalit movement[edit]

In this and this edit summary JimRenge challenges whether the sections on Millenarianism and Refuge as a political choice are relevant enough to the subject. I will be starting a discussion about this here, since it pertains to improving the article's focus.

  1. I believe Millenarianism is relevant to the subject of faith, since it involves movements that acted out of faith and hope for a better future. Many of these movements were powerful in nature, and have played an important role in the history of Buddhism. This is a significant topic in academic literature concerning the nature of Buddhist faith.
  2. The taking refuge as a political choice by the Dalit communities in the last section of main body of the article deals with the modernist phenomenon of people taking refuge merely as a political choice. This is basically about becoming a Buddhist without actually having faith, which indicates a new development in the history of the experience of Buddhist faith.

I hope I have clarified the relevance of these two sections. Let me know if anything else should be improved in the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

In following up on this discussion, JimRenge has specified his arguments as follows:
  1. The text in the "Millenarianism" section does not show why Buddhist "Millenarianism is relevant to the subject of faith" [in Buddhism].
  2. The claim that Dalits convert to Buddhism "without actually having faith" may be legitimate but it lacks high quality sources which provide and discuss the evidence. Do opposing views exist? The "Refuge as a political choice" section does not explain the role of faith in Navayana.
In response to this, in a number of edits, I have added more content to the sections mentioned. I think this has dealt with the relation with faith sufficiently (though not in the way that I suspected it at first), proving the relevance of these two sections. Regardless, I will continue to look for further sources to improve the two sections. Should you want to pursue this inquiry, Jim, please continue over here, to keep the discussion centralized.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the lead now, to reflect the added content.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mahāyāna Buddhism section[edit]

1 "...with the arising of Mahāyāna Buddhism..." "Arising" should just be "rise." "Arise" is not normally used in this manner and it makes the passage more confusing.


2 "Perhaps the most important text (Sanskrit: sūtra) in Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Lotus Sūtra embraces the ideal of faith." I would recommend introducing the Lotus Sūtra before explaining what it is. I would probably reword this sentence to say: "The Lotus Sūtra, perhaps the most important text (Sanskrit: sūtra) in Mahāyāna Buddhism, embraces the ideal of faith."


3 You tend to begin sections with the word "perhaps," which I do not think is the best way to introduce new sections and I think it makes it sound like what is about to follow is purely speculation.

Indeed, could be considered WP:WEASEL. I have replaced the statement by a another, similar one from the same source and page.

4 " idea similar to the Christian concept of "salvation of sinners"." I do not really see the similarity. Christianity teaches that anyone can repent and be saved, including even the most "wicked" of sinners; it does not teach that "wicked" people have a better chance of salvation than others. This may be one of those errors that you were referring to earlier. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The source cited can be read in more than one way. But I've re-checked the source, and I think your interpretation is better. I have fixed this now. It doesn't seem like Harvey has misunderstood Christian doctrine, but rather I did.
I have also red-linked the Christian term, since it should have its own article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Katolophyromai, I think I am ready for more assessment now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Other developments section[edit]

  1. "According to Religious Studies scholar..." "Religious Studies" should not be capitalized because it is not a proper name.
  2. "East-Asian" There should not be a hyphen here. The phrase is just "East Asian."
  3. "although as of 2004, there was no scholarly consensus about that yet." The use of the word "may" implies that there is no consensus, which makes this statement redundant. Also, the fact that this is dated to fourteen years ago makes the statement sound outdated. I would recommend just omitting this clause altogether.

These are all my comments over this section. I thought it was quite well-written and informative. The information about the deities and the millenarianism was quite interesting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the compliment.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Modern developments section[edit]

  1. "more emphasized" This should be "placed greater emphasis on." "More emphasized" is not idiomatic.
  2. "...against interpretation of Buddhism that do away with all faith and devotion..." There is a subject-verb agreement problem here. "Interpretations" should be made plural to agree with the plural verb tense.
  3. "...fed up with the Indian caste system..." The wording here seems a bit colloquial. I might recommend changing this to "dissatisfied" or "irritated by" or "annoying with" or something else that does not sound so trite.

These are all my comments for this section. Once again, I thought that, on the whole, it was well-written, informative, and quite interesting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And done. Thanks for the compliments, and let me know what you think of the article in its entirety.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this article is up to GA standards and I now feel comfortable passing it. Congratulations! --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the honest review, Katolophyromai!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance of sections Millenarianism and Dalit movement[edit]

In this and this edit summary JimRenge challenges whether the sections on Millenarianism and Refuge as a political choice are relevant enough to the subject. I will be starting a discussion about this in the GA Review, since it pertains to improving the article's focus. (Focus is part of GA criteria.) See above for the transcluded version, or if you want to join in, go to the GA review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, thank you for your explanations [2].
1. The text in the "Millenarianism" section does not show why Buddhist "Millenarianism is relevant to the subject of faith" [in Buddhism].
2. The claim that Dalits convert to Buddhism "without actually having faith" may be legitimate but it lacks high quality sources which provide and discuss the evidence. Do opposing views exist? The "Refuge as a political choice" section does not explain the role of faith in Navayana. JimRenge (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Answered above, in GA assessment.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Images Faith in Buddhism checked (copied from User_talk:Gerda_Arendt)[edit]

I have checked the images in the article Faith in Buddhism, and I have added tags where necessary. I think it is okay now, though I am not an expert on copyright.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Our expert is Nikkimaria. This is for peer review, going for FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Whenever you're showing something three-dimensional, you need to know whether the country of origin has freedom of panorama, and if no you must include a tag for the original work as well as the photo. Also, when you're showing something two-dimensional, under US copyright law the photographer gets no copyright – it is all the original author. So for example the photographer has no right to release File:Manjusri_Painted.jpg, it depends on the wishes of the artist. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I'll recheck and try to fix.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Not directly related to Faith in Buddhism, but related to the freedom of panorama: Nikkimaria, would you say a relief like File:Sariputra_and_Maudgalyayana_become_disciples_of_Buddha_Roundel_31_buddha_ivory_tusk.jpg falls under freedom of panorama in India? I am uncertain whether it is considered 2d or 3d.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Pending an answer to my question above, I'd also like to state that I checked the article Faith in Buddhism and found one image with no copyright of the original author, as you already mentioned, and three images from countries with limited freedom of panorama. One of these was uploaded by a user that has retired, and can therefore not be asked about it. I have therefore removed it. Two other images involve statues that might have been recently built, and I am checking with the uploaders when they were built now. This concerns the images File:Maitreya_Buddha.jpg and File:Seiryô-ji Buddhist Temple - Statue of Hônen.jpg. So... to be continued.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of copying this conversation to the article talk? - I'll archive soon, trying to keep no more than 50 messages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Done, and continued there.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have now removed the image of Maitreya as well. According to this article, the statue was only recently built.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the conversation about the relief, not related to this Wiki article, to Talk:Maudgalyayana#Image of relief.
I think I have now removed all problematic images from the wiki article here. Nikkimaria, please check again if it passes for FA with regard to images and copyright.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Need a location for 九天禅院_释迦牟尼佛.jpg and Buddha_Kopf.jpg to determine, and a translated source for Daisetsu_Teitarō_Suzuki_photographed_by_Shigeru_Tamura.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I added locations.
  1. Do i need to have an official permission from the German retreat center to depict their Buddha sculpture on commons:File:Buddha_Kopf.jpg?
  2. The url given at commons:File:Daisetsu_Teitarō_Suzuki_photographed_by_Shigeru_Tamura.jpg is no longer accessible. What qualification must the new url have, since the copyright of the original Japanese photograph has lapsed anyway?
  1. No.
  2. It should reliably verify the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── original source The original person who uploaded the first ever historical file? I have no clue what you are talking about. Lots of brief responses in a row. I am sure that you are really trying to help me, but there is a lot of jargon and know-how. I'll read up about copyright later, if I have time. That maybe more useful than this conversation. Thanks anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The uploader in this case is not important, because they are not the copyright holder. You have a tag that claims the work is in the public domain for one of three reasons - you ideally want a source that verifies whichever of those three reasons is believed to apply here. For example, if the reason is because it was published before 1958, the source should verify that. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I was not able to trace publication information, as most of the information about the photographer is in Japanese. The uploader did specify the title of a book which contains the pictures, called 現代日本の百人(1953年刊). This book can be found on Google Books, but it cannot be searched. Let me know whether this is in anyway helpful, or if you have other tips to trace the information. If not, I will remove this image as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Er, Nikkimaria, shall we wrap this up? Then you will be no longer bothered by me. To be deleted or not to be deleted, that is the question...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay. The book title will work if we have nothing else - you could potentially try a TinEye search to track down an alternate source, but it's workable without that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried Tineye,but couldn't find anything useful. Thanks though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)